Putin's Master Plan. Douglas E. SchoenЧитать онлайн книгу.
of the West itself, human rights, free economies, and liberal democracy appear to be in retreat. And even in Western Europe and the United States, political correctness is undermining our commitment to these values.
Vladimir Putin certainly does not believe in human rights, at least not according to any recognizable Western conception of them. Nor do many among the Russian elite and the majority of the general populace. Putin does not preside over a free economy, and he has proven himself a committed enemy of liberal democracy. He understands, perhaps better than we do, that the West’s military power, economic strength, and political will are dependent on our core values. If we allow our commitment to these values to waver, and Russian aggression to undermine our confidence in the West’s ability to overcome challenges while remaining true to its core principles, then Russia will gain at our expense. If we fail to defend human rights, Russia will continue to disregard them. If we don’t promote free economies, then Putin and his obedient oligarchs will continue to direct the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. If we don’t stand up for liberal democracy, then Putin will continue to govern Russia with an iron fist until the day a handpicked successor inherits his authoritarian regime.
Western values matter. They have made us happy, prosperous, and free. The transatlantic alliance can and must do more to protect and promote them, both internally and around the world.
Together, the two sides of the North Atlantic—the United States on one side and Western Europe on the other—constitute the greatest political, military, economic, and cultural force in human history. While exact definitions of “the West” vary, and no single institution or organization should be taken to represent the full breadth and depth of the transatlantic relationship, there is doubtless a common civilizational space spanning Alaska to the borders of Eastern Europe, with outposts in places like Australia and Japan. This area accounts for just under one-seventh of the world’s population but about half of its global economic output4 and the overwhelming preponderance of the world’s military strength, and it is where many globally influential centers of culture reside, including New York, London, Los Angeles, and Paris. What happens in the West reverberates across the world. This can be a problem, as it was when the bursting of the American housing bubble precipitated a global economic recession. But it is also a key strength that the West can leverage to the betterment of humanity, as it does when the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to someone like Malala Yousafzai, or when Western economies produce world-changing technologies like the Internet.
Cultural and economic advantages have limits, however, when posed against a determined adversary like Putin, along with his anti-Western allies in Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, and elsewhere. They’re not especially useful in the effort to combat Putin’s power grab in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The Nobel Peace Prize is influential precisely because it is largely apolitical (at least in principle), and inventions like the Internet come about when brilliant minds are free to innovate without political interference. So it is difficult to bring Western culture or economics to bear in a systematic way against authoritarians like Putin without compromising our own values and handing him a moral victory. Economic sanctions against Russia have had some effect, but Putin has been adept at evading them and finding other less scrupulous trading partners in Asia and the Middle East. Our European partners can still do considerably more to abide by the sanctions they have agreed to. Russians may like Western culture, but there is plenty of Russian-language media to keep them happy. It seems unlikely that we would ever go so far as to restrict Russian tourism to the West altogether.
That leaves one Western strength that can be brought unambiguously into the fray against Putin’s aggression, and that stands explicitly at the command of our political leaders: military power. NATO countries account for slightly more than half of global military spending,5 or about $893 billion in 2015.6 Our militaries are not as strong as they should be, and the Russian military is making gains, but there is little doubt that NATO possesses the most powerful military in history. It is especially remarkable that this unequaled force was created not by a conquest-mad dictator or power-hungry warlord but by largely peaceful, democratic countries whose primary interest was self-defense. Imagine what Vladimir Putin would do with just one of America’s ten Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Imagine what the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would do if they had a tank as good as the M1 Abrams. Imagine what the People’s Liberation Army of China would do if it had special operations forces as well trained as Delta Force or Seal Team Six. America and its allies maintain these forces with the hope that we will never have to use them.
But Putin has put the West in a position where we must make it clear that all options are on the table. Putin has been unafraid to kill civilians and invade his neighbors. He represents the antithesis of Western values. Western leaders may be able to stop him through the effective application of coercive diplomacy and economic pressure, though up to now, our efforts in these areas have been mostly unavailing. Undergirding any successful approach must be a credible threat of Western military action—particularly united NATO military action—should Putin threaten a NATO country like Estonia or Poland or pursue open war against the citizens of Ukraine, Georgia, or any other sovereign nation that resists Russian pressure. The West spends billions on its armed forces, and we should make it clear that we maintain them precisely to protect Western countries from aggression.
Unfortunately, our political leaders have been caught flatfooted. They have failed to formulate a coherent response to Putin’s aggression. They have yet to define the scenarios where the use of force would be justified. For years, we have conceded the initiative to Putin, who controls the outcome of conflicts in Ukraine and Syria since he is the only one willing to back up his words with the threat or application of military force. He knows that the West’s feckless leaders are so worried about being blamed for starting a war that they will not do what it takes to prevent one.
PUTIN’S CHALLENGE
Although the transatlantic relationship has been tested many times before, it now faces its gravest threat from a Russia determined to sever the ties that bind the West together. And the West’s internal social tumults are providing plenty of fodder for Putin to draw upon. Putin has been explicit in his condemnation of contemporary Western values, claiming that “many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual.”7
Indeed, statistics show that in Western Europe and the United States, religious practice has been on the decline for decades, and it is dropping off more sharply among the young. At the same time, movements for gay rights, especially gay marriage, have redefined Western social arrangements—and for some in the West, this is not to their liking. Thus, Putin’s themes find a sympathetic audience even among a portion of Westerners. Putin also appeals to nationalist identity politics, undermining the European integration project, when he says that “one must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.”8 These words resonate with many in Europe today, especially in light of the migrant crisis. Thus in multiple areas, Putin positions himself as the champion of what he portrays as traditional values. The West, Putin insists, has lost its way, and he is here to save it.
Of course, Putin has no intention of saving the West. Rather, Putin aims to shatter the internal European consensus that has brought about the longest period of peace and prosperity since the Roman Empire. The European Union has many flaws, but its fundamental purpose of better relations, free trade and travel, and coordinated solutions to shared challenges is admirable and worthy. But a successful, prosperous, and broadly cooperative Europe is Putin’s worst nightmare, since it provides him with no window to pursue his own political or territorial ambitions on the continent. A Europe united in its commitment to Western values will not find Putin’s brand of neo-Tsarist authoritarianism appealing, and European countries that coordinate their defense policies through NATO or the EU will not fall to Russian military pressure. The more division and discord Putin can spread within Europe, and the more doubt he can plant in the minds of Europeans when it comes to Western values, the more opportunities he will have to achieve his goals.
Putin is